tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post8401966122212699622..comments2024-01-30T04:32:47.585-05:00Comments on The Cooler: Kael on Cinema Trash - Part IV (Worthwhile)Jason Bellamyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-87688562208296700362009-06-21T09:09:09.922-04:002009-06-21T09:09:09.922-04:00As for the Paulettes, my understanding was that th...<i>As for the Paulettes, my understanding was that they tended (and still tend) to follow her ethoes or what were perceived to be her ethos, i.e. pleasure first, leave messages for Sunday School, fart in the direction of Art, rather than duping specific opinions of hers.</i><br /><br />I've been out of town and a little late to the party here, but let me comment quickly on this with exampled excerpts below. Take what you want from these (all from "Reformed" Paulettes), but it seems to have been more than just ethos:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nypress.com/article-3786-james-wolcotta-qa-by-russ-smith-john-strausbaugh.html" rel="nofollow">James Wolcott:</a> "The Paulette thing was very interesting. When I first got to New York I thought people really wanted to argue, I really thought New York was like it was in movies and when you read things about the Partisan Review gang, that people actually liked to argue and dispute. And what I learned was, no, the moment you disagreed or contradicted somebody they fell silent. They would just absent themselves, like we had nothing more to say to each other. It was sort of absurd."<br /><br /><a href="http://rockcriticsarchives.com/interviews/owengleiberman/owengleiberman.html" rel="nofollow">Owen Gleiberman:</a> "The Paulettes know who they are, and even after her death they remain a smug little circle, bound by certain kneejerk attitudes and tastes.... The irony, to me, is that most of them are good writers. They're just scared of what true independence means."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-24768257_ITM" rel="nofollow">David Denby,</a> whose <i>New Yorker</i> piece "My Life as a Paulette" isn't available (as far as I can tell) in full form online, but discusses this issue at length. I remember one line being, "You couldn't agree too quickly (with Kael) or you lost her respect, but in the end, you had to agree."Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-89831927042036822002009-06-19T18:38:15.137-04:002009-06-19T18:38:15.137-04:00That's a fair point, Jason, but yeah, the &quo...That's a fair point, Jason, but yeah, the "bought off" comment really threw me for a loop! I can picture Kael succumbing to hype or subtle flattery - almost makes her all the more lovable. But to discover she took money in some back alley to give The Owl and the Pussycat a rave review would have broken my heart...<br /><br />I hope to comment on your latest two sometime this weekend or later. It's strange, commentary (though not so much blog traffic) seem to die off sharply around Wednesday or Thursday and hit their nadir on the weekend (that part's not so suprising). Hopefully people return to finish up what was started...(I will)Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-83612388575178432302009-06-19T17:02:46.994-04:002009-06-19T17:02:46.994-04:00MovieMan: Mea culpa. I should have phrased that mu...MovieMan: Mea culpa. I should have phrased that much differently, especially on the Internet where people toss off rumor for truth all the time. Reading my comments again, I did offer some disclaimers in there, but in attempting to be vague, so as not to pretend I know the truth, it reads like I know the truth but won't spell it out. And even then, it's poorly worded.<br /><br />When I said "bought off," I was being figurative. I was thinking of instances like the ones you described. (To be clear, I never meant to imply that Kael actually took money, or was otherwise paid off.)<br /><br />Going back to my original comment here, where I got myself into this mess (note to self: never squeeze in comments when you don't have time to reread them), I was really responding to the end of the passage I quoted: "publicists creating a climate of importance around a movie."<br /><br />It's a remark that makes Kael seem above it all, above influence, above bias, like a hard-line old-school journalist who doesn't get too close to the subject. I think it is safe to say that there's evidence that Kael was not that. To use the <i>Nashville</i> example, Altman catered to Kael's desires, knowing the impact it would have, which as much a marketing tactic as suggesting to the public that X movie is an award contender or that Y movie is a must-see blockbuster. (And, yes, Kael conveniently left out mention of such relationships.)<br /><br />In my head at the time, that came through, in both comments. But reading it now, it reads like Bill O'Reilly-esque insinuation, which makes me want to puke, frankly. So I thank you for asking me to clarify, so it didn't just sit there like that. Apologies.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-9576442731136804082009-06-19T15:47:57.680-04:002009-06-19T15:47:57.680-04:00Jason,
I've been looking online for the rumor...Jason,<br /><br />I've been looking online for the rumors you speak of & can't find anything - what had you heard as far as her being "bought"? The only things that come to mind are that she had an in-depth lunch and conversation with the writers of Bonnie & Clyde before praising them - and often denigrating Arthur Penn - in her rave review (without mentioning said conversation in that review) and also that Nashville was screened for, and changes were made according to her suggestions, something she also did not mention in her rave. Neither of these are exactly what I would consider being "bought off" so I'm guessing you had something else in mind...Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-13269948627738721832009-06-19T15:31:53.640-04:002009-06-19T15:31:53.640-04:00Jason,
I had not heard those rumors. As for the P...Jason,<br /><br />I had not heard those rumors. As for the Paulettes, my understanding was that they tended (and still tend) to follow her ethoes or what were perceived to be her ethos, i.e. pleasure first, leave messages for Sunday School, fart in the direction of Art, rather than duping specific opinions of hers. But I'd like to stress that these were just my impressions...I really have not delved into this area deeply at all and you may indeed be - probably are - correct.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-77058110394619854022009-06-18T21:20:15.323-04:002009-06-18T21:20:15.323-04:00MovieMan: Well, the passage in question would impl...MovieMan: Well, the passage in question would imply that Kael couldn't be bought, that she always reviewed by her gut. But there are legends that suggest that, yes, in fact, she could be bought.<br /><br />Likewise, if you believe in the "Paulettes" at all, then you believe that Kael inspired critics who went on to have a group-think mentality, slave either to one another's opinion or to Pauline's. And thus Pauline inspired at least some critics who didn't think for themselves, but who thought for Pauline.<br /><br />Now, I'm not an expert on the Paulette rumors or her own shady ethics. But I've seen smoke enough places to believe that there's fire in this regard.<br /><br />None of this is to mistake that I enjoy the heck out of Kael's criticism. But she could be as honest as a politician.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-45900366402617547542009-06-18T18:11:16.532-04:002009-06-18T18:11:16.532-04:00Jason, what do you mean about the quote being hypo...Jason, what do you mean about the quote being hypocritical? It seems like it's a condemnation of other critics and I don't really see Kael as really having fallen into the trap she condemns in her peers.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-43664387946787913502009-06-18T17:40:11.528-04:002009-06-18T17:40:11.528-04:00"I’m not sure most movie reviewers consider w..."I’m not sure most movie reviewers consider what they honestly enjoy as being central to criticism. Some at least appear to think that would be relying too much on their own tastes, being too personal instead of being “objective” – relying on the ready-made terms of cultural respectability and on consensus judgment (which, to a rather shocking degree, can be arranged by publicists creating a climate of importance around a movie)."<br /><br />Well, anyone who knows anything about Kael and her ethics and her habits knows that the above is a tremendous piece of hypocrisy. Nonetheless, I agree with it. Going back to that last passage from the third entry, I think too many critics say "art" when they mean "ouch." I think too many look deeper and create a reaction that they didn't really have. I'm not one who, like Kael, believes every movie should be seen once. But if a film is boring two times in a row and then piques the interest in viewing No. 3, well, the criticism should sure as shit make that clear. I want critics who write from the gut.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-19707888447476060422009-06-18T11:10:51.809-04:002009-06-18T11:10:51.809-04:00I think this last passage could apply equally well...I think this last passage could apply equally well to today. Writing at the tail end of the 60s malaise, when things had already started to turn around but the last of Old Hollywood was dying, Kael was witnessing an art form in decline.<br /><br />Today, having reached the bitter ends of the childlike promise of 70s blockbusters and the smaller but somewhat refreshing 90s indie boom, American cinema also seems to be at its rope's end. However, financially it is apparently thriving so unlike the 60s we may not see Hollywood ready to turn itself around.<br /><br />But unlike then, when technological and media-access limitations meant that one had to work through the industry to reach an audience, today the potential exists for bypassing Hollywood altogether. I still hold out hope that the 10s will see, like the 70s to the 60s, a cinematic renaissance in the face of a seemingly-inevitable decline.<br /><br />The past decade has, to me, seen an outright confirmation of Kael's assertions - most of the "big" artistic pictures have been disappointing, pleasant trivialities at best, bloated bores at worst. In another area, one she did not quite foresee though she's ocassionally been accused of fostering it, trash has also become "big" and forfeited many of the pleasures it once provided. Now the equivalent of those B movies whose appeal she recognized have become so inflated that they are closer to the charges she lobs at Petulia and 2001 - "All that 'art' may be what prevents pictures like these from being enjoyable trash; they’re not honestly crummy, they’re very fancy and they take their crummy ideas seriously." The only blockbuster I've seen that pulled off the combination of artistic pretensions and a trashy milieu was The Dark Knight, and even that was quite flawed (to the point where its virtues seemed almost accidental).<br /><br />We are more in need than ever of movies which try to fuse the appeal of trash with the artistic heights, that combine entertainment and art to the point where parsing them out becomes meaningless.Joel Bockohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11238338958380683893noreply@blogger.com